Saturday, August 31, 2013

Peter has asked me to write a “guest editorial
in which you tell what YOU suggest as he best ideas and most recommended modes
of thinking- for the future you wish to LENR.”

I'm tempted to dismantle this, so I'll get that out of the way first:

The Best Ideas are the Correct Ones. Get rid of all the others immediately.
The Most Recommended modes of thinking are, of course, the Clear ones.
Especially the ones where you think like me.

Ahem. It's a fair request, and I take it as a sincere one.

There are two approaches here. The first is totally generic; it's not just
about LENR. It is about every aspect of life. I do talk about this, but instead
of doing that here, I'm simply going to recommend The Curriculum for Living,
Landmark Education, and, to the extent practical, advanced training, and I'll
be happy to communicate personally with anyone who wants a conversation over
this.

So the second approach is to talk about LERN, what is happening and what might
be missing.

It's easy to go back and identify "errors" in the past, but the
present and future are not only built from the past, they are a new creation
that is not limited by the past. However, it can be useful to identify what was
missing, in situations in the past, that led to what happened.

We cannot change what happened, but we can change what it *means*, because that
is an ongoing creation of ours.

So, I’ve been pointing out that the announcement of Pons and Fleischmann in
1989 contained claims that, in hindsight, at least, were premature. They were
presented as if they overturned accepted physics, yet the evidence presented
was circumstantial. An established paradigm, established based on long success
in predictive power, will not be overturned merely because an anomaly appears.
Pons and Fleischmann were the worlds' foremost electrochemists, perhaps, and
were eminently qualified to do accurate calorimetry, but the physicists were
not impressed. Claims were being made that were, they perceived, *in their
territory.* And they immediately recognized every error. At the same time,
there was a perceived threat to a billion dollars a year in hot fusion
research, which heavily employs physicists. That's nothing to sniff at.

(It's likely that, as Peter Hagelstein wrote earlier this year in Infinite
Energy, that cold fusion will not, when the mystery is resolved, overturn
physics, just some inadequately considered approximations and assumptions.)

So, derived principle: don't claim the overthrow of an established paradigm, on
which many careers and reputations depend, without *first* establishing the
necessary evidence, beyond doubt. I can imagine exceptions. Don't try them at
home. They would be exceptions like, you have unlimited funding and you have no
concerns about career and public acceptance. Even then, watch your back!

So here we are, almost 25 years later. Now what? Well, what we think about this
might not be all that important. I consider it a good possibility that
Defkalion will have a product, or at least be arranging for independent
testing, before the end of next year. Rossi, it's possible, but less likely, in
my judgment. That will make what I have to say about progress in LENR moot, it
will blow the lid off. So what I write now is Plan B. And LENR is so important,
as to the possibility of effectively limitless green energy for humanity, that
we cannot wait and simply hope. Commercial enterprises fail, for lots of
reasons. We don't yet know how reliable these NiH products will be.

So Plan B. We do not need to wait for LENR to appear at Home Depot. The
scientific evidence is clear that LENR is real. However, that fact is not
particularly well known. LENR research is still somewhat suppressed. For over
two decades, it was a career killer to be involved in LENR research, and we
still see signs of lingering effects.

So my proposal is fairly simple. What it would mean, in practice, may vary from
nation to nation, but for the United States, where I live, I've
been saying it this way: we are going back to the United Sates Department of
Energy. Our activity will not be limited to that, for there are other sources
for funding research, but, here, we have a leg up, if we use it.

Both U.S. DoE reviews recommended "modest funding" to answer open
research issues. The second review, in particular, showed substantial
recognition of the reality of the heat effect, and far more recognition of the
possibility of it being nuclear in nature than was the case in 1989. We would
be asking the DoE to follow their own recommendations.

We can look at the second review and can see why it was as successful as it
was, and why it was as unsuccessful as it was. We will learn from this. This
time, we will go back prepared, and on our terms. We will not mix weak evidence
with strong, or circumstantial evidence with direct evidence. We will not
present a confusing farrago of anomalies, unexplained effects, but focus on
*one mystery*. What is happening in the PF Heat Effect?

And we will have specific recommendations, with budgets, ready. We will propose
two avenues of research.

First, we will suggest that leaving the question of the reality of cold fusion
open, unresolved, maintains massive uncertainty. The direct evidence for cold
fusion reality is clear, but funding limitations have limited the accuracy of
those measurements. Nailing this down is thus essential. We will request support
or direct funding for definitive and accurate measurement of the heat/helium
ratio.

Second, we will propose support for research into the character of the Nuclear
Active Environment, what conditions, precisely, facilitate this reaction? Part
of this involves exploring the parameter space around existing protocols.

The first avenue of research establishes reality. (Theoretically, it's possible
that heat/helium could turn out to be artifact. I can't imagine it, but failure
of imagination isn't proof of anything. Remember 1989? *We need to know,* and
the "we" here includes physicists, policy-makers, genuine skeptics,
etc.)

The second avenue of research will open up the possibility of reliability.
Success in this avenue could create massive opportunity for practical
applications.

There are other avenues to be explored. I'd mention NiH work, except that, at
this point, it is not scientifically established, as is PdD work. That may
shift at any time, and if the first two avenues are explored, we can be quite
sure that others will be, as well.

We will recommend, to the Department of Energy, a systematic approach to the
research.

We will do the same with other possible funding agencies. Again, this is too
important to place all our eggs in one basket. The same presentations that we
will develop will be useful for other venues.

What can individuals do?

Well, all these activities require some level of funding. For me to go to
ICCF-18 cost about $700. I was able to keep costs down by taking the bus, and
by not registering for the Conference and instead obtaining a press pass. I
have received $350 so far in donations to support this. I'm living on a fixed
income, and I'm still out of pocket.

So ... support the people working in the field. Ruby Carat has herself been
funding her public work, for years, and it's a drain and a strain for her.http://coldfusionnow.org/

Take a look athttp://coldfusioncommunity.net/. That's me, so far. Volunteer to
create web resources, edit, report. As the project I'm creating gains steam,
there will be funding, but we aren't there yet.

Encourage students to learn about cold fusion. We will need a whole new
generation of researchers. It will happen rapidly if the commercial efforts
break though, but if not, we will *still* need those fresh faces and minds.

I'm doing this work because I'm told, by the scientists and others, that I'm
useful. I can explain things in a way that communicates. If I'm supported, I
can do it better.

Commit yourself! Throw your hat over the fence! Are we going to make this
happen? I want to hear a thousand people shout, Yes!

Friday, August 30, 2013

After writing the pilot paper
of this series deliberately in a playful, forced humor mode, something strange
has happened and I became really deeply motivated to discover ideas that can
serve to solve the LENR problem and to find out which modes of thinking could
be used for this problem solving action.

I have decided to make all the
possible efforts and to ask for help from everybody who can contribute to a
solution. Simultaneously I also realized that my campaign is marked by error-
actually it is much better and efficient to use negative thinking first and
reject all the harmful ideas and abandon all the misleading thinking practices
from the field. A first example will show how necessary is this indeed, however
I will try to go toward the Solution and in the same time to try to eliminate
counter solutions.

REALITY DENIAL

It is about denying other people’s reality, or vision of reality. It is a
radical method saying “you see a problem where it is no problem at all”, so if
it you see a problem, it is YOUR problem. No problem as such exists, just you
see it so. For example it is not realism considering that LENR has problems
just because after almost 25 years it has not delivered the promised energy
technology. Objectively thinking, considers Abd:

What you call "realism," Peter, is, from my
point of view a dream, a fantasy, something made up. That is, "deep
trouble" is not a reality. It's an interpretation coming out of standards
created by the mind, whether individually or collectively. LENR is not a thing
that can be "in trouble," it doesn't care, it's just a concept;
underneath it may be a reality -- we think so -- but reality is never in
trouble. I haven't notice that reality varies from day to day, have you?

He is right from the general
point of view of philosophy, or of Nature herself. I know that my position
would be equally weak if I consider that poverty, hunger, AIDS, drugs, hatred
groups, greenhouse gases, increasing inequality, arsenic poisoned water or
illiteracy would be my problem not a problem per se. Superior thinking has more
elevated criteria. LENR produces interesting science after all.
My myopic judgment determines me to also consider that it is a ‘problem”
if only one experiment from six gives measurable excess heat- actually it is a
fact not a problem and scientific method can and has to be applied to LENR;
parameter studies can be performed and the science thus obtained will be
applied to develop even a technology- on serious scientific bases not via
engineering and/or empirical methods. Furthermore my false reality pushes me to
search for explanations of the natural low reproducibility of excess heat when
any real scientist knows that this is inherent to such a noble but complex
metal. It seems I am not familiar with probabilities and my reality,
additionally of being primitively dualistic is overly deterministic. I love my
limits and I am dedicated to LENR beyond any limits, I know well that humankind
has an energy problem, needs more energy, cheaper, greener healthier and LENR
could become a Great Solution. Unfortunately not scientifically odorized
rhetoric and even not the fierce opposition by LENR deniers (a.k.a. skeptics)
are the greatest obstacles to its transformation in a techno-progressive energy
source. No, it is its premature discovery – science was not prepared for it,
theories have explained only some aspects of it; from the multitude of forms in
which it can appear it was found in the worst, weakest and most inert. Bad
luck! Now with the application of systems theory to the problem and the use of
nanoplasmonics this will change. One historical merit of the CF/LENR problem is
its contribution to micro-calorimetry. As this essay shows, it has also helped
the high art of scientific excuses; however telling that a problem is not
existent is not a high performance. Presenting a problem as a solution is;
reality reversal is better than reality denial and it is standard in politics.
In science it is more difficult to ignore facts. You can explain away reality or
substitute it with a “better” one but this does not help solving problems.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

When you photograph people
in color, you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in black
and white, you photograph their souls! (Ted Grant)

In a controversy, the instant we feel anger;
we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for
ourselves. (Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha)

I have many
controversies with some of my LENR colleagues, however the Buddha has no reasons
to worry for me. I succeeded to develop a positive habit, as higher is my
repulsion toward the erroneous and even
harmful ideas (in LENR only!) of somebody as stronger is my empathy toward the
person, the poor fallible, falsely informed, intellectually limited,
pathologically motivated, sinful person (they consider me so too and I have to
agree some times).. In most cases the history of our science field will excuse
them by oblivion. This positive attitude cannot be changed even by my opponents
mental manipulation practices or deliberate misinterpretation of what I have
told. I accept their rather childish trials to replace my thinking that want to
be free and independent with their memefied mental maneuvers I well know that: “To be yourself in a
world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest
accomplishment. (Ralph Waldo Emerson)” This statement is very
valid for the labyrinthic art of LENR thinking.

It is not entirely true that: Lord protect me from my
friends, I can take care of my enemies (Voltaire) because
my very best friends are the best friends of the genuine, productive LENR+ too.

Some changes can be seen these days in the evil
infrastructure- the way to Hell is not more paved with good intentions. Crowded
buses are circulating there one-way and good intentions are used as fuel.

In the following I will discuss about some of
the many accusations against my LENR ideas.

I. BLACK and WHITE THINKING

This is the
most common argument- due to my limited mental resources I am unable to
comprehend the amazing richness of the existence (the LENR fragment of it), for
me the situations are good or bad, LENR is a complete disaster, LENR + is a
total triumph, Pd is good for nothing while Ni is the metal of future. For me
gray or colored thinking is inaccessible, air poisoning is fatal for LENR in
all the cases and independently of any circumstances. I ignore alternatives, I am
blind to other possibilities, cannot use probabilities, will never imagine
something marvelous as a reversal of effect. I am sure that, even the
undeniable fact that I have invented-created scipiology, the art of directly
converting disasters in triumphs (see please http://newenergytimes.com/v2/archives/fic/F/F199402.PDF
and this blog) will not change a bit their certainty that I am thinking in
black and/or white with a strong focus and preference for what black signifies. I cannot go beyond true or not true
and I am a hopeless prisoner of my self-imposed limits. I don’t take these
tragically however when my surrender to complexity is invoked by people who
really exhibit this fatal flaw- I am amazed.

These things
are not new, on the contrary. A few days ago when I have received a message of
6738 words from Abd systematically dissecting my LENR ideas I had a sudden
illumination moment: I remembered in the clairvoyant mode that Abd has told me
the same words almost, 101+ years ago! You would not believe at once this but
please listen.

It is well
known that in case your have difficulties in accepting your mortality- then you
have only 3 practical solutions:

a) be deeply
religious and eternal life comes as a primary reward for many religions
(attention- sex is allowed only in few Paradises!);

b) follow
exactly the teachings of the gerontologist Aubrey de Grey;

c) learn the
practice of metempsychosis, with some efforts you will

be able to
reincarnate in a person from the categories you like with an over 90%
probability

Anyway Abd (then
with the name Damian) and I (Harry) met in April 1912 on a great modern ship-
due to my Alz in statu-nascendi I have forgotten its name, but it was about
something very big, I am sure.

We both were
very rich young boys, not very nice. He had more money but I was nastier (read
about "Accidents in metempsychosis". Both passionate for the card
game contract bridge, soon we formed a team. We won quite easily the Ship's
Bridge Championship organized on April 14 afternoon and we were just
celebrating our victory with a few bottles of Veuve Clicqout champagne. Going
to the bathroom I overheard people from the staff speaking about possible
icebergs on our way and how dangerous these can be. Damian -Abd was not
impressed, he was a fanatical optimist laughed and has accused me of alarmism
and even of cowardice:

“You
have no idea how many good, perfect alternatives there are to our ship hitting
a pesky iceberg! We have our way, the iceberg its own way the probability of
collision is negligible. Haven't you read that this ship has the most modern
navigation system in the world, haven't you learned that our Captain
Edward Smith is an infallible expert?

And it
is not about hitting an iceberg or not, please do not think in black or white-
only in the sense that the hulls of the ship are made from black metal are
so resistant that white ice- that is only ordinary lowly plain water
cannot damage them seriously. The ship has many compartments and even if it
happens that 1-2-3 are broken, the rest will keeps us
afloat perfectly.

The bad
chance of a catastrophe is a real minimum; I have traveled more than 100,000
miles with ships, not so good than this and never had serious problems. Always
think about good alternatives.”

I have to
reckon he was very convincing.

The following
day however, Damian was already fully engaged in the next metempsychosis
campaign, while I, taking care to become an excellent swimmer in all my
consecutive lives, was traveling with Carpathia and I succeeded to happily survive
till 1919 when I got the flue. .. et puis bonjour!

Unfortunately
for Abd, existence, reality, life, science, research is full of simplistic Yes/No
options and any situation, however relative has to be compared to what it was
planned, desired, promised to be.

You can learn
a lot from the card game we played on that unlucky ship: unfulfilled promises
are punished with cruelty; doing a bit more than you have bid gets a modest
reward- many times so is in life too. Words can be misused, phrases can be
crippled or manipulated, however still there is no source of energy having its
direct roots in the Fleischmann Pons Cell so I will continue to tell with
sadness that LENR classic is in deep trouble.

If somebody
can tell us about marvelous scientific facts, clearly understood and constantly
demonstrable by more different methods- than I will immediately retract “in
deep trouble”

Thursday, August 22, 2013

My second paper about active sites and N.A.E. had 328 pageviews in two days compared with 254 for the first; this shows the subject is of some interest for
my readers and I have decided to continue the up-hill battle against the theory
of cracks being the Nuclear Active Environment created and developed by Dr.
Edmund Storms. He does not abandon this theory on the contrary – as the first
Motto shows he defends it valiantly

Actually, he was the very first reader to help me with criticizing my paper i.e. my ideas. He has started by asking me with a shade of reproach: “Peter,
why do you write about subjects that you know nothing about?” Being
given that I have published the first paper ever about CF taking place in
catalytic active sites when everybody was still convinced that the Pd lattice
does the trick, I have considered the question just a figure of speech, however
in no case an ad hominem attack used only by confused people lacking scientific
arguments. He has not answered directly
to my anti-crack arguments (I will repeat and clarify them later) and is very
upset for the low standards in the field that make possible such unnecessary
disputes. Yes, cracks are able to do all those wonderful things from
Fleischmann and Pons and all the users of their cells to Arata and Piantelli
and Ahern and Kidwell and to Rossi and Defkalion (the list was compiled by me)
He says:

“The NAE in my theory are cracks of a
especially small gap size that are generated by stress relief in the material.
They permit formation of a structure that is able to lower the Coulomb barrier
and dissipate the energy by emission of low energy photons from the nucleus.
The theory shows how helium, tritium and deuterium are made by the fusion
process, what conditions are required for the process to work, and identifies
engineering variables that are needed to control the process. Many
details are descried in the papers I have already sent to CMNS and more will be
provided in …his coming papers”

Ed has written
repeatedly that ‘N.A.E is a very simple concept’ and I have found
this very disquieting till I have
understood that he refers to the
principle, the raison d’etre of these NAE- special places where interesting
things happen (something already well known from catalysis or from pilgrimage
places) and NOT to the structure and function of the N.A.E.

First- quite unusual for Abd, his answer has
732 words compared to 531 in my article; typically his writings
are at least 5 times more loquacious than what he criticizes or contradict.
This is in part because he knows amazingly many facts but also a question of
style and of tactic. Many words are or seem always smarter and stronger than
few in disputes...

A blog paper is not strictly scientific; there
are also personal feelings and even fears in it. As all old cold fusionists I
was also educated (read culturalized, memefied) in the spirit of cult of
palladium and of the FP Cell- however due to some personal traits and
experience I became very discontented with the situation, have discovered
myself and have learned from people more knowledgeable than me- that CF/LENR
has to get out of its cradle and must find entirely new ways. And it had done
this! It is not pleasant to be a dissident to have ideas in direct opposition
with those of my more disciplined and less speculative comrades. In this case I
have made a diplomatic suggestion that my idea re cracks

should be considered only as wishful thinking
and I am just an inoffensive heretic. However I know that speaking about the
Pdisaster I went already too far.

Being my friend and, I dare to think knowing
that I am right in a much greater extent as he will ever state, Abd has accepted this game. Yes it is mainly
childish wishful thinking I simply want that cracks are the N.A.E. but cannot prove it in
any rational and/or scientific way

Abd explains:

“Storms is not writing about
a limit to possibilities, he's writingabout the LENR that is known and confirmed and
replicated all overthe world,
and specifically, about palladium deuteride,electrochemically loaded. The Fleischmann-Pons
Heat Effect.”

Abd is frequently using the
argument that because we know so much about the PdD system, so much more than
e.g. about the NiH system we have to get our LENR truths from the FP system.
Here I disagree- we do not know so much about PdD! What we know is in low position
on the DIKW scale (please read about this scale on my blog) It is tragic that the theory of
cracks as NAE comes from the PdD experience. We know the defining conditions
for PdD starting with the high saturation ratio but we have only one certainty,
it is true wonderful as such, 3 words: SOMETIMES IT WORKS i.e. it gives excess
heat. Why it does it, why other times it does not work, how exactly this
happens we simply still don’t know. At the Institute of Isotopic and Molecular
Technology where I retired from in 1999 there are all the pre-CF books and
papers re the metallurgy of palladium and the palladium – hydrogen system;
there are cracks in this metal in such conditions but the morphology and
metallurgy are much too complex to be controllable. Old
stuff.

If NAE is cracks theory is valid for the Pd
system that means for the experiments: “if Pd cracks well, it will
work well’ –the opposite is true too. Is this an alternative to my
ait-poisoning hypothesis of irreproducibility? It reminds me the joke from
the Ceausescu era:

“What is small, crippled and black and knocks at the
door?” “Answer “The future!” Dear Abd, what is the future of PdD LENR if cracks
are NAE? It is about the future of both the science and the technology of LENR.

My mental reception is not perfect here, but I
have a hazy impression about Abd‘s minor doubts re crack orthodoxy.

When it was about holes, micro- or
nano-cavities Ed’s theory was more attractive for me.

Back to the fight of ideas: actually has not
confronted my arguments directly and attacks on the periphery not at the core of
the things. I repeat my arguments in amore aggressive mode:

“Cracks as NAE” is in direct opposition with:

- the reality of existence of
almost-technological intense LENR processes as Rossi and DGT, you cannot build
a technology on inherently incontrollable cracking;

- the knowledge coming from outside re.
catalytic active sites that are complex not simple cracks;

- the knowledge coming from inside the field
re the determinant role of the nanostructures that are sophisticated and smart
not something primitive like a crack;

- if cracking is the key of success, CF/LENR
will remain irreproducible and uncontrollable forever,

- cracking cannot explain why two forms,
levels of LENR exist-LENR+ with enhanced excess heat is the way to useful energy.

Suppose PdD really functions in/with cracks- why should
nanostructures- based and nanoplasmonics based forms of LENR use the same cheap,
primitive, anti-technological anarchic and inefficient trick?

For a start, please read what says Piantelli
about nanostructures and re-read Defkalion’s ICCF-17 paper.

Eventually a point seemingly outside this
dispute but essential to understand the difference between the thinking of Abd
and me.

Abd writes: “We are successful with Nature when we respect What Happens more thanwe demand to have what we want.
Nature, in fact, in my experience,often
has a Better Idea.”

Homo sapiens speaks so. Homo
faber, homo technologicus thinks differently he goes mercilessly for what he wants;
he uses the laws of Nature to achieve what he needs. He has a disrespectful
respect for Nature; sometimes he makes fatal errors but makes a sometimes very
hostile world better for him. Nature knows it better has followed a long and
smooth learning curve, had eons to elaborate solutions but never had what we
perceive as problems.

We can perhaps understand now
better the difference between the Scientific Method and the Technological
Method. Both are based on questions we put to
Nature. The scientific questions are perhaps more polite, more smarter while
the technological ones are rude, even inquisitorial. Mother Nature was much to
secretive sod even a bit perverse with the answers regarding LENR. The time is
ripe for putting new questions and forcing her to answer. Otherwise She will
send us to search for productive cracks.

Peter

COMMENTS BY ABD- you will see we are still light years from consensus but that's no problem; LENR starts to cope with its situation:

Let's see if we make a blog publication of this exchange of ideas.

Whatever.

>First- quite unusual for you, your answer has 732 worda compared
>to 531 in my article, typically your writings are 5 times more wordy
>than what you criticize or contradict.; this is in part because you know
>many facts
>but also a question of style and of tactic. Many words are or seem
>smarter and stronger than few.

Well, my writing varies with purpose. Most of what I write is as if it were a conversation. Because you may read at leisure, or not at all, someone else may read, I don't pay attention to the relative number of words, at all.

I'm *not* contradicting or criticizing. I'm *responding*. I do happen to be a dialectical thinker, so if you say A, I may say not-A, but that doesn't meant that I think not-A is better than A, but I want to compare them.

But that's just a general principle, what I actually do may be different.

>A blog paper is not strictly scientific there are also personal feelings
>and even fears in it.

Yes, of course. Same with much e-mail.

> As all old cold fusionists I was also educated >(read culturalized, memefied) in the spirit of cult of palladium and of the
>FP Cell-

Do remember that I'm *not* an "old cold fusionist."

> however due to some personal traits and experience I became very
>discontented with the situation, have discovered myself and have learned
>from people more knowledgeable than me- that CF/LENR has to get out of its
>cradle and find entirely new ways.

Of course. But you don't just grab children and demand they grow up.

Strictly speaking, you are not writing about CF/LENR, but about the community. It seems you do get them mixed up sometimes.

> And it had done this! It is not pleasant to be a dissident.
>In this case I have made a diplomatic suggestion that my idea re cracks
>should be considered only as wishful thinking and I am just an inoffensive
>heretic.

Peter, you have some ideas about yourself that I'd challenge, but I'd prefer to do it in person. I hope you will be at ICCF-19 in Venice.

>Being my friend and, I dare to think knowing that I am right in a much
>greater >extent (and being an old fox even if not so old as me) you have accepted
>this game.

We talk, we play with words.

>Actually you have not confronted my arguments directly and you attack on
>the periphery not the core of he things

If you say so.

>Cracks as NAE is in direct opposition with:- the reality of existence of almost-technological intense LENR processes >as Rossi and DGT, you cannot build a technology on inherently
>incontrollable cracking;

You have confused cracks as an *explanation* of the FP Heat Effect, and an *attempted explanation* by Storms of NiH results, with a *recommendation* of cracks as an approach. Storms in asserting cracks as universal is weak. But in asserting cracks as an explanation of the variability of the FPHE, he's pretty likely to be correct.Now, with cracks in mind, he proposes the hydroton. That's a linear structure and would be fostered by linear structures in the host metal. How long are these structures? We don't know. My own guess is that the active structures are *not* linear, or, if they are, it's not long.But we *start* with cracks, as something that *works* -- sometimes -- in the FPHE. But that doesn't mean that we will engineer devices with cracking. Or we could, it's one approach to creating small structures, and cracking can be engineered to be quite precise. You have in mind something very limited, uncontrolled.

Yes, the original work was *very* uncontrolled, nobody had a clue.

Peter, understand the idea of "crack" by comparison with "bulk." Not by comparison with engineered cavities and similar organized, designed structures.

What you call LENR+ is just LENR, engineered. Peter: But engineered to a huge quality jump, density of NAE in LENR+ is at least 100 times greater than in LENR classic! New mechanisms of NAE-genesis.

>- the knowledge coming from outside re. catalytic active sites that are
>complex not simple cracks;

We don't know the characteristics of the active sites. Defkalion is attempting to engineer them, but we don't know how sophisticated they have gotten with this. I wish you could have been along with us, visiting SKINR and the labs they have access to, and seeing the kind of nanotech work they are doing.

>- the knowledge coming from inside the field re the determinant role of the
>nanostructures that are sophisticated and smart not something primitive like
>a crack;

A crack is just a separation of two pieces of material. Nanocracks may be very controlled, it's possible. You'd call them "cracks" based on how they were formed. It's simply an approach. The fuel doesn't care how the structure was built, whether it was assembled from pieces with a controlled separation, or made from a single piece broken apart, separated. The key is design of the structures, that's where the field will go, it's obvious.

We have a pretty good idea of the gross structure of the Hyperion. What we don't have is the details of the active nanoparticles. We have some rough ideas.

What's your point, Peter? Do you think that I'm saying that we should reject these attempts and just take some palladium and stress it? That there is only one way to get LENR, the Holy Fleischmann Method?

No, Peter. PdD is useful for the science, as a fairly well-known example of LENR, rather easily accessible for study, with a large body of work. Hardly anyone thinks that PdD LENR will ever be practical for power, though I just learned about a design from Fleischmann that was never built, with very high density predicted. So maybe. But I'm certainly not holding my breath for it, nor should anyone.

I'm proposing going back to verify heat/helium with higher accuracy. The only thing that has to do with practical applications is that, if heat/helium is confirmed with higher accuracy, it might shake loose some serious funding, but I'd expect most of that funding, by the time this happens, will go into NiH research -- including identifying the fuel/ash relationship for NiH.

It's about politics and science.

>- if cracking is the key of success, CF/LENR will remain irreproducible and
>uncontrollable forever,

Straw man argument, Peter. I certainly did not argue that. But LENR is already reproducible. You've bought that old canard.

Are coin tosses reproducible? Have I told you what I did with my daughter the other day? I told her I would toss a coin, "Heads."

And then I did. Of course, as luck (?) would have it, it wasn't until the eighth toss. And I filled the space with negative self-talk, like, "I must be doing something wrong."

The next day, I said the same thing and then tossed a Head the first time. "See! I'm getting better at this!"

She laughed and laughed.

But we are like that.Very nice story thanks; due to my limits I am unable to get the correlationbetween coin tosses and reproducibility. "Should your car, personal airplane,PC, smartphone, pressure cooker etc. work so reproducible as a PdD experiment!Is this a blessing or a curse?Do not ask superior understanding from a technologist, please.Peter

that had a rather low impact 250 readers and only 3 friendly
comments by my friends Axil, Abd and Doug. That paper has included a metaphor
for the poisoning hypothesis and, most remarkable. the idea of Defkalion that the
reactor itself is the true nuclear active environment, including the active
sites...

The problem of NAE has been recently discussed vividly on
our forums and the refrain remained the same: N.A.E is lowly cracks,

Cracks are voids, badly defined, of many possible sizes and
forms, unstructured, uncontrollable. They really do not seem able to trigger
such unexpected events as nuclear reactions and/or nuclear interactions.

Cracking is by definition a destructive and auto destructive
process

that cannot last (except if/when) by some contrary process of
rebuilding the metal lattice. This auto destruction is contradicted

by many cases/forms of LENR that have functioned well for long
times at intensities of Watts (Piantelli, Arata, Ahern)
or kilowatts (Rossi, Defkalion). Cracks are technologically hopeless.

The idea of cracks is
simplistic and in direct contradiction with the experience regarding he elaborate
structures of the chemical active sites in catalysis

The idea of NAE being just cracks is retrograde in
opposition to the trend of using smart, ever smarter complex nanostructures in
LENR please re-read what Piantelli says about this on my blog but this is only
an example of many. Cracks would be an anti-complex solution.

Cracks as NAE do not works with advanced nanotechnology in
its static variant but it is also incompatible with the highly dynamic
nanoplasmonics –the science-technology that defines LENR+

Eventually if this form of new energy really comes from cracks, then we cannot distinguish between,
low intensity, static, transient LENR classic and high intensity, dynamic high density
NAE, enhanced excess heat LENR +. A crack is a crack is a crack, As shown I
believe cracks have no positive role in LENR, this concept tells me less than
nothing in this case. I think N.A.E are very sophisticated high tech structures
not simply nano-voids.

I have never observed the people with whom I am discussing now
this cracks non-issue, in flagranti of changing an opinion. Therefore,
especially for them, the title of this essay is “Why I hope that NAE areNOT cracks.” Let them accuse me of wishful thinking and technological reality
of being anti-scientific and hostile to poor cracks.

Abstract: Cold fusion is very important and complex. One of main difficulties of cold fusion is the explanation on appearance of nuclear reaction. Based on the standard quantum

mechanics, we propose the physical-chemical-nuclear multistage chain reaction theory,which may explain cold fusion. Since cold fusion is an open system, synergetics and laser theory can be applied, and the Fokker-Planck equation is obtained. Using the corresponding Schrödinger equation and the nonlinear Dirac equation, and combining the multistage chain reaction theory, the quantitative results agree completely with some experiments on cold fusion. Finally, we discuss some new researches, for example, the

nonlinear quantum theory, catalyzer and nanomaterial, etc., and propose the three laws of cold fusion:

(1) The time accumulate law,

(2) The area direct ratio law, and

(3) The

multistage chain reaction law.

------------------

There are some striking similarities with the DGT-AXIL approach

to understand LENR+/HENI as:

1. Open system definition of the NAE2. Complexity of multistage fusion fission process3. The 3 laws, indicating a path to plasmonics

Eppur si muove - it is progress in Cold Fusion- marching away from its Cradle!

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Those working in the field of LENR- in a way or other have
discouragingly few certainties and, what’s worse their certainties are
disturbingly different. My own basic certainty to which I have arrived to
around 1991, is that the reactions generating excess heat are very local taking
place in active sites as heterogeneous catalysis does.

I am sharing this idea with more colleagues; our perhaps
most influential scientist and thinker, Dr. Edmund Storms has developed the
idea to the level of a theory- of NAE –nuclear active environment. See please
his presentation at ICCF-18, “Explaining Cold Fusion.” - the
abstracts is at:

Dr. Storms and I agree that the role of these active sites
in LENR is vital; however there is no agreement between us regarding the “life” or activity inside the active sites/NAE. It would be
interesting to know how many LENR-ists, experimentalists and theorists think
these active sites are the key and how many think differently. This question is related to n other idea about which I wrote
recently: can a mono-theory explain LENR or it is necessary and
interdisciplinary approach- combinations of different theories? Mono-theories
vs. pluri-theories? This division is still greatly naïve wishful thinking from
my part, searching for an unique theory explaining everything

is still the dominant philosophy, one smart concept, one
universal solution.

However my disagreement re. active sites with Dr. Storms and
many other colleagues has an other aspect, much more pragmatic: I have hypothesized
long ago that CF/LENR’s endemic destructive sickness, weakness, curse whatever-
d(r)eadfully bad reproducibility of the results is caused by the competition of
gas molecules with the reactive
deuterium for the active sites- and deuterium is the loser. First I thought
that only the very polar impurities, containing C, S or N are the culprit but later
I conclude that any gas, including inert nitrogen or noble gases can act as
invaders letting poor hydrogen isotopes – homeless.

The absolute lack of success of my poisoning hypothesis-
nobody took it seriously was very probably my greatest failure ever and an
extremal case of Cassandra Syndrome generating even the necessity

of creating a verbal antinomy of “to persuade”. The idea is childish, primitive, simplistic, is too mundane, lacks elegance and
mathematics, is dirty, non-demonstrable (you cannot see a nitrogen molecule
keeping away a deuterium molecule on a potential active site), has no practical
solution for the classic PdD electrolysis cell- this cannot be made anaerobic. And if say some very rare
circumstances as a cathode protected by
monomolecular layer of tensioactive substance, then comes the next
trouble- small density of active sites. The genius of our best scientists was
not able to solve the reproducibility problem for LENR classic.

I have learned from professor Francesco Piantelli the
essential importance of deep degassing- before putting nickel in contact with hydrogen, the surface of the metal must be absolutely
free

of
any molecules of gas. This is so well described in EP2368252. (search
please for my “odes” dedicated to WO 2010/058288 in this blog.)

For
some time I have believed that that the LENR+ systems due to the in-situ mechanism of NAE-genesis
are more tolerant toward alien gases. From Rossi no data can be obtained, however
very recently Defkalion has described the importance of degassing for their
well working technological process. Describing what has happened at the Demo of
July 23, Yiannis Hadjichristos wrote, by the way to our colleague Abd:

Answering in advance to your next question on controllability please note:

Before running the demo of 23rd we had sent a protocol
that we were to follow to ICCF and we conducted a shorter demo with H2 at 22nd
in parallel with a general discussion on "CF" with Italian journalists,
broadcasted also to the public. The later was following the same protocol and
gave a COP approx 3.5 at the level of 7.5kW output. After this short demo we
degassed the reactor over night pumping out all H2 in order to run the next day
a control run using Ar.
This degassing procedure is crucial and must be followed every time we have to
open the reactor (which we did not in this case) or when we have to change gas
i.e. from Ar to H2 or vice versa. Any "alien" gas remaining in the
reactor affects the objective of the test as far as active sites might be
occupied by the wrong gas.

At 23rd we pumped Ar into the reactor and run a control
test resulting to COP 0.82, using the same main input parameters (gas pressure,
input currents and coolant flow) as in the demo of 22nd. Even with max input
currents the reactor's internal or surface temperatures and coolant’s
temperature could not exceed, as expected, the demonstrated values.

We stop that run and we had available about 45min to degas
Ar in order to synchronize the demo with the broadcasting program and ICCF18
scheduled activities EVEN THOUGH WE WERE VIOLATING A TYPICAL PROTOCOL that
requires at least 8h of degassing in order to remove Ar properly. During this
degassing procedure Mats Lewan blew up the main fuse of the building trying to
connect an oscilloscope to the electric board. This event reduced the degassing
time available to about 30min.
At the beginning of the second part of the demo using H2 I warned the audience
that we might expect a negative effect to the performance of the reactor
because of that partial degassing of Ar. I had to do this as we have witnessed
several times in the past the results of the presence of wrong gases in the
performance as they block the active sites to be turned to NAEs. You can see
the results in the videos still available in the internet both in the
performance and the temperature signals that raised, as expected, to much
higher levels than the Ar test even though the input power was gradually
reduced compared with the Ar test and the coolant flow was the same as in the
Ar run. We calculated later that the R5 performance was reduced by aprox
40% in that second test because of the limited Ar degassing.”

Yiannis
has also told me that based on their technological experience they have
standardized the conditions of deep degassing for the three possible cases: a)
when a reactor was opened for inspection; b) degassing to remove Ar after a
control test and c) degassing H2 to prepare a control test. As he has mentioned
during the test case c) needs the most drastic conditions because even very
small quantities of residual hydrogen can generate heat and lead to a false
positive in a control test. These
data, seen in the context of hat we have already learned show us that DGT’s
technology is remarkably mature, however in the same time this is also a warning for
LENR classic: “no deep degassing, no reliable
excess heat, story finished, dura lex sed lex!”

While there can be some hope for systems with preformed nanostructures to
be converted in LENR+ with NAE formed continuously in situ (the unique way to
success), the classic electrochemical Pd D system will remain only …"scientific".
However the impossibility to degas it will perturb any Pd D LENR investigation; I
will not say “for ever” because it sounds so sensationalist. The Motto
suggests that PdD, LENR classic-classic will remain captive in the
Irreproducibility Hell. However the author of the Motto has stated “The
path to paradise begins in hell.” (Dante
Alighieri) As the Italians would tell “Andiamo!” Let’s go!

It is possible this essay will convince some colleagues
that alien gas molecules are destroying the chances of PdD to function reproducibly
or, even better to stimulate them to demonstrate by triumphal experiments, brightly
that I am, in this case for sure, in deep stupid error. And the gas poisoning
hypothesis deserves its sad fate.

Peter

PS In my fantasy LENR world the PdD system is so passé. I
hear the voice of future. Our friend and collaborator of my blog, Axil whom I
consider the Father of the New Wave Thinking n LENR+ has written this miniature
these days- it is the voice of the near future:

“In Kim's ICCF 18 paper.
there are two references to nanoplasmonic papers [16, 17]. Also, DGT has been
famously quoted as stating that LENR should stand for nanoplasmonics:

However, readers who are aware of
nanoplasmonics—a new area of
science dealing with the interaction of photons with matter including nuclei or
sub-nuclear particles—will be interested to read how scientists at the Defkalion
Green Technologies (DGT) lab now describe phenomena that they see happening in
DGT’s excess-heat-producing Hyperion product. Instead of using the term
low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), DGT has been calling the process HENI—heat
energy from nuclear interactions. A recent breakthrough resulted in a change;
instead of the “N” standing for nuclear, it now stands for nanoplasmonics. I
expect that this simpler interpretation of the phenomena could help with the
public image of this field and its products. Could it also build alliances with
other academic fields”

Our
readers who had read the last episode of the "cold fusion in Greece”
thriller (see www.tovima.gr/science/ article /? aid = 486578) had taken two
notes: First, that Defkalion Green Technologies (DGT internationally) moved the
headquarters to Vancouver, Canada. Second, that by the end of the summer they
would present us with concrete proof their reactor can turn from a
controversial experiment into a product capable of supporting a completely new
energy era.

I
was thinking intensely what exactly happened during the eight months of
'emigration' and what would the current product be when, late July, came the
first bizarre information: Defkalion was negotiating the opening of new offices
at Syngrou avenue, in Athens, and they had "close contact" with
Fasmatech, a company manufacturing spectrographs-to order, at "Democritos"
Research Institute technology hub. What had actually happened? I requested an
interview with Defkalion`s CEO Alexandros Xanthoulis and his reply confirmed
the information I had received: he was back in Athens-Greece and he would meet
me at their new offices which are now the headquarters for Greece, the Balkans,
and the Middle East.

But before I refer to
the questions I asked him and the responses I received it is necessary to
inform you of what else happened on this "hot July” to the field of Cold
fusion. So many things happened that Cold Fusion is anything but “cold
“since...

Battleship
Missouri

As
all physics students know by now, the famous announcement by Stanley Pons and
Martin Fleischmann, in 1989, that they had produced nuclear fusion in room
temperature, was eventually called "the biggest fiasco in the history of
physics”.A group of physics professors which was formed by the U.S. President
ruled that the announcement was based on a bunch of errors of the two
researchers, their careers were destroyed, the U.S. Office of Patent and
Trademark refused hereafter to accept similar patents and many books were
written that ridiculed Cold Fusion scientists calling them "dreamers”.
However, the way which the two scientists were silenced as well as some
unexplained results of similar experiments, rallied many of researchers who
insisted on pursuing cold fusion to an annual conference, called ICCF.

This year the
18th ICCF took place in University of Missouri, between 21 and 27 of July.
There were 83 speakers and was attended by scientists from 26 countries. Whatthe scientists of “Physics Orthodoxy" were expecting
from this conference was one more attempt of the "unorthodox” to offer
another theoretical foundation on their unfounded fantasies. Instead they were
surprised when two well-known Japanese researchers offered scientific explanations to the
mysteries associated to Defkalion`s technology.

Akito Takahashi supported that the key was the unique formation of a Tetrahedral Symmetric Cluster of four deuterons, which then fuse to Be8 before fissioning
to alpha particles (two neutrons and two protons as in nuclei of stellar
helium He2+).

On his side, Dr. Tadahiko Mizuno said that "when heavy electrons enter the outer shell of a proton, the
radius of the hydrogen atom becomes exponentially smaller with respect to the
weight of the heavy electrons, bringing the protons closer together. When this
happens, the probability of tunneling fusion increases exponentially The
nuclear reaction can be controlled with this energy production method of
bringing protons

and heavy electrons together inside nanoparticles. This
brings within reach the goal of developing a practical nanoparticle energy
reactor”. Dr. Mizuno`s measurements also
confirmed last year's announcement at the ICCF by John Hatzichristos,
Defkalion`s Director of Technology, of the existence of isotope pairs in their
reaction.

Even more monstrous for the "Physics
Orthodoxy” though was the thesis of Yeong
E. Kim, a highly
qualified U.S. Professor of Physics at the Purdue University. His thesis was
co-signed by DGT’s John Hadjichristos. Under the title "Theoretical
analysis and mechanisms of reaction for experimental results of hydrogen-nickel
systems”, their work explained what might be happening in Defkalion`s reactor
in order to get "unreasonably multiplied” energy output than that
consumed.

Kim explained
to the conference that Hyperion
(Defkalion’s reactor) contains a core of metallic nickel foam that is heated
from 180 ° C to 849 ° C, with a plasma arch. After that, you observe a sharp
increase of the magnetic field within the reactor between 0.6 to 1,6 Tesla.
This according to Kim indicates that "the reaction results in very strong
electric fields E, currents I and magnetic fields B”. He also reported that at
the Defkalion tests that he attended, excess heat was produced only from the even isotopes of
nickel (Ni 58, 60, 62 and 64), while odd isotopes (Ni 61) do not produce excess
heat.Completing his presentation on
the reaction, Kim reported that he did not detect any other gamma radiation
other than that between 50 keV and 300 keV and presented graphs indicating
excess heat output and a control system that could start, stop and control the
reaction at will.

Then he
proceeded to a theoretical explanation of this phenomenon: He described his
theory of Boson Cluster-State Nuclear Fusion (BCSNF), which he extended to include hydrogen–metal
systems, and said that the predicted values of the reaction can be
compared with the experimental values
measured during of the Defkalion`s reaction. In his opinion, what happens is
that the magnetic fields created enforce the magnetic alignment of the nickel
atoms, which in turn create ​​local magnetic traps (LMT) of bosons on the
surface of nickel dust, although these traps have a short lifespan. And he
summed up: "The report of the mixture of hydrogen and nickel dust to the
plasma arch generates a magnetic field that leads atoms in Rydberg state and
allows to create magnetic traps at the nanoscale. The fusion of the
captive bosons on the nickel surface produces excess heat and local discharge
sparks ".

According to Kim, this self-sustained reaction could be
improved by increasing the density of reactant gas. This must be tested in the
next generation of Defkalion`s reactor (code named Hyperion R-6). This will
happen after a “on-line real-time” mass spectrometer - which has
been already ordered from the Greek company Fasmatech and it is been currently
manufactured - becomes operational.”The problem has been solved,"
Kim concluded with enthusiasm and he declared eager to speak to any other
theorist of physics in order to convince them. And, as he stated in an
interview (http://egooutpeters.blogspot.gr/) ”at Vancouver I witnessed a
protocoled successful testwith results leaving no doubt
about plenty of heat in excess and good control of the device. I am an optimist
regarding the principles, but also for discovering and or creating the details
which I plan to work on very hard in collaboration with my DGTG friends”.

The
striptease dareScientifically
speaking, the cold fusion arsenal had now been increased dramatically. However,
for the skeptics of the experimental reaction the question remained as to how
the measurements and the theoretical explanations were the
results of a controlled environment and the ability of the reactor to repeat
the process over and over again.

And then... something unexpected
happened: On Tuesday 23 of July Defkalion broadcasted to the ICCF conference
(and around the world through the Internet) an eight hour long live
experimental running of the reactor.The experiment took a place at Defkalion`s
laboratories in Milan, under the supervision of Mats Lewan, an independent
observer (editor of the Swedish energy magazine «NyTeknik» and electrical engineer).

This broadcast was preceded by another
broadcast the previous day, for an Italian TV channel and a radio station.
During the eight-hour experiment Defkalion`s technicians emptied all the
hydrogen from the Hyperion chambers and they filled it up with argon. Then they
refilled with hydrogen and put it into operation. Although the process of
filling with argon was sped up (normally would require many more hours)
resulting in reduction of the system`s output performance, at the end they
managed to prove that by consuming 2.7 KW of power the reactor produced 5.5 kW
of heat. The approximately 1,000 online viewers of the experiment remained
largely mystified by the results. Most of them were wondering if there were any
hidden cables that were secretly powering the system. However an oversight of
the observer, Mats Lewan, as he was franticly checking the set up blew a fuse
and sank the rest
of the building in the dark! After that
it was rather obvious that Hyperion`s electric circuit was a closed one and
free of any mischief.

The
impact of this live demonstration was extremely positive. Everybody applauded
Defkalion`s courage to "open
its cards"
in such a bold way. Physicist Steven E. Jones - who fought against Pons and
Fleischmann, back in 1989 and who participated in the conference, said: "From my observations, this is a project
well worth paying attention to - interesting work and the team is showing
admirable courage to open the project to scientific scrutiny in this manner.”.
He also said that "the fact that they have observed a huge magnetic
anomaly (in the reactor) does not surprise me. I expect it”. After 24 years
... he was expecting it. But where are Pons
and Fleischmann now, who were so harshly ridiculed?

The
reaction of the Forbes magazine to the noise that the
broadcast of the experiment generated was especially characteristic: When the
special columnist Marc Gibbs wrote an article titled "Defkalion broadcasts
live cold fusion experiment- now "(see
www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/23 /defkalion
demonstrates-lenrlive-right-now /) ...he lost his job! Trying to figure out why
he was dismissed brings a lot of thoughts to mind. But most important was the
earth shuttering reply that came next day: The famous Nobel prize laureate of
the eponymous Josephson effect - Professor of Cambridge, Brian David
Josephson- posted to YouTube the experiment (see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHEtnTO3h6s ), noting: "Will this be the event that finally
leads to acceptance of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (cold fusion)?”

Interview: Top of FormAlexandros Xanthoulis

I went up to the new offices of
Defkalion via an elevator that needed a special security code to operate.
"Does this mean that you returned to Greece and abandoned Vancouver?” I asked the CEO and economist
Alexandros Xanthoulis.

"We always said that we would be
back, although we were not sure that we could accomplish it that soon. We are
not abandoning Vancouver though, as we similarly maintaining our other research
center in Milan also. Our Athens office is a subsidiary of the Canadian company
and covers the Middle East and the Balkans, as Milan covers Europe. The main
partner of the R&D center and all companies is the Canadian Entity which carries
out the administration also. Things evolve so rapidly that local presence at
various points of the planet is vital."

"But is it not reasonable that
someone might ask where would your assembly line be?” I insisted.

"You should not look at us as an
entity that would build Hyperion reactors. Defkalion’s prime role is research and
development.Our technology has been tested by 12 different companies so far,
out of which ten are part of the top companies in the world. Each one of these
companies – like
some of the1300 other ones, from 78 countries, that we are dealing – would be buying the rights of
developing reactors for specific sectors and specific markets/countries.
Defkalion will only develop reactors in Greece, in Xanthi, Greece, to be more
specific, and for two sectors only: one would be for marine propulsion, heating
and refrigeration (with 50% investor participation) and the second in providing
energy for desalination factories (from a non-profit subsidiary of Defkalion).
This second area is part of our humanitarian commitment to our planet, in the
sense that we would not only provide cheap water solutions to our islands but
also to poor countries on the planet that face severe water problems, as in
Africa etc.”
I smiled as I was multiplying in my mind 1300 companies times the $40 million
dollars that is rumored the average cost to buy rights from Defkalion... But
how real is all that? I pressed him for company names and proofs. He refused,
saying that he is bound by confidentiality agreements that were requested and
signed with businesses that already purchased rights.

Our meeting continued with a kind of “arm wrestling” match of information: I kept of
bringing up company names that rumor had it they bought the rights already and
him politely refusing to verify. So I cannot tell you who has already invested
in Defkalion’s
Cold-Fusion technology, but I can surely bet that: before it comes to the point
that you will be able to buy a small
cold fusion “engine” for your house, certain car,
motorcycle, stove, train and airplane makers/manufacturers would be already
using them on their models. Even huge IT companies energy hungry “farms” of
servers….Maybe
even Space Vehicle/Rocket manufacturers.

"And all this even before you
formally introduced some non-experimental model of the Hyperion,,,», I commented. ”And then? What will your next step be?
".

"Our next step has already begun.
Scientifically, it is the vast improvement of the engine, with the exploitation
of the unique spectrometer that is manufactured for us by Fasmatech, right here
in Greece. Business wise is our listing at the Toronto Stock Market. We are
working on our paperwork and we believe that we would be able to negotiate
after October 15th, 2013.
Starting November 1st, we will hold a Road Show from city to city to promote
our share. "

"Listing
in the Stock Market means that by October you will reveal your secret
partners?"

"Yes, of course."

"And you will not have been
acquired until then, by anyone? Rumor has it that there has been close business
flirting by a female representative of China ... ".

"At times we’ve had many “flirts” from many countries. I could easily
say from every continent. "

"Are there any of the big
countries that haven’t shown
any interest so far?".

"Yes. Russia ".

A recently published report related to
cold fusion developments from Ukraine came to my mind.

“Maybe
because they have their own solution in their hat "I added.

For a moment he seemed to be counting
the possibilities. I thought of grabbing the opportunity to surprise him.

"How
about the check with seven zeros that was given to you by a consortium of
Spanish bankers, businessmen and politicians so they can acquire a 21% share of
Defkalion? Wasn’t this the beginning to sell even more
pieces of the pie? '.

He laughed. "I don`t know what you are talking
about, but if someone is willing to add another zero to the number you
said...maybe, "he replied.